Shooting Speed of the 45-175

I'm interested in picking up a 45-175, but had a question that I'm hoping some owners of the lens could answer. I'm mainly interested in shooting the lens in medium burst mode so that the camera retains auto-focus, but I want to know if the lens is capable of delivering enough FPS during shooting in burst mode. I own a 100-300, but when shooting it in burst mode it never shoots as fast as my 35-100 does (this is a well known and documented issue with the 100-300). Does the 45-175 suffer from this same issue, or does it shoot at the full FPS for the selected burst mode?

I'm actually selling one of these but not for that reason. I may be very mistaken but generally, FPS is a function of the body, not the lens. Unless the camera is set to focus priority and its not acquiring focus, I'm not sure how that plays into it. Are you talking about having it in continuous focus mode? That could enter it as well as you may have trouble seeing max FPS in one shot mode. I can't speak to the documented issues with other lenses but I can say that your body should be the limiting factor in terms of what FPS could be expected. In medium FPS mode, I doubt you'd see the differences much to be honest.

I'm about to pick up a used copy of this lens for my E-M5, stay tuned.

I'd agree that the body plays a part, but it's the combination that counts. For instance, the C-AF burst rate I get with the 45 f/1.8 is noticeably faster than I get with the 40-150R f/4-5.6. I'm pretty sure the 45-175 won't be a fast one but let's see if it is better. I'm mostly interested in it's better ergonomics and it's non trombone zoom.

Out of curiosity, why are you getting this lens? It overlaps quite a bit with the excellent 35-100.

I picked one up for a good price on ebay. If I don't like it, I'll just throw it back up on ebay and won't lose too much money on the deal.

The reason I'm looking to pick this up is to give me the extra reach over the 35-100, but cutting down on the size and weight when compared to the 100-300. I really like the size and weight of the 45-175, as well as the fixed length of the lens across the zoom range. I'm hoping that the shooting speed of lens with AF-C and M burst will be better than the 100-300, because it is abysmally slow (roughly half the shooting speed of the 35-100, due to the older design of the lens).

The seller said I should have the lens on Friday, so I'm hoping I can take some comparison shots with the 35-100, 45-175, and 100-300, as well as offer my thoughts about the lens.

I'm actually selling one of these but not for that reason. I may be very mistaken but generally, FPS is a function of the body, not the lens. Unless the camera is set to focus priority and its not acquiring focus, I'm not sure how that plays into it. Are you talking about having it in continuous focus mode? That could enter it as well as you may have trouble seeing max FPS in one shot mode. I can't speak to the documented issues with other lenses but I can say that your body should be the limiting factor in terms of what FPS could be expected. In medium FPS mode, I doubt you'd see the differences much to be honest.

Click to expand...

The 100-300 suffers from a well documented issue, that it can't deliver a shooting speed of 4 fps (what my G6 does in "M" burst mode with constant auto focus). Panasonic has even admitted this, stating that it's due to the way the aperture is designed on that lens compared to newer lenses, which limits the lenses ability to deliver specific fps rates above a certain threshold.

With the same settings on the same camera, my 35-100 will shoot 4.5 fps while the 100-300 shoots at about 2 fps. Proof that the lens does indeed play a role in the ability to deliver a specific fps in burst shooting.

The 100-300 suffers from a well documented issue, that it can't deliver a shooting speed of 4 fps (what my G6 does in "M" burst mode with constant auto focus). Panasonic has even admitted this, stating that it's due to the way the aperture is designed on that lens compared to newer lenses, which limits the lenses ability to deliver specific fps rates above a certain threshold.

With the same settings on the same camera, my 35-100 will shoot 4.5 fps while the 100-300 shoots at about 2 fps. Proof that the lens does indeed play a role in the ability to deliver a specific fps in burst shooting.

Well, IQ is largely a wash compared to the 40-150R, better in the centre but a little worse in the corners, partly due to C/A. The C/A isn't as bad as I was lead to believe - a little worse than the 40-150R but well taken care of by ACR. AF is better - quieter, a tad faster, a little less hunting at the long end. Also faster in sequential-L burst mode on the E-M5 than the 40-150R.

I keep getting disappointed with the output of the 45-175 at first glance, but then when I compare them to the 40-150R they're largely better. Perhaps I was expecting too much. I can't get over how much better the lens feels in the hand though - it's easier to grip for shooting and changing out, and both zoom and MF rings have a nicer action than the 40-150R. I hated trying to use the MF ring when the 40-150R was extended out. Despite being 20g heavier on paper, the 45-175 actually feels lighter than the 40-150R, and has a narrower profile for easier carry. The non-extending power zoom is great - discrete, stable (doesn't feel front heavy and wobbly), and doesn't get bogged down when I put heavy attachments like macro dioptres and the TCON-17 on.

More testing to follow, but early signs are that I might sell my 40-150R...

Well, IQ is largely a wash compared to the 40-150R, better in the centre but a little worse in the corners, partly due to C/A. The C/A isn't as bad as I was lead to believe - a little worse than the 40-150R but well taken care of by ACR. AF is better - quieter, a tad faster, a little less hunting at the long end. Also faster in sequential-L burst mode on the E-M5 than the 40-150R.

I keep getting disappointed with the output of the 45-175 at first glance, but then when I compare them to the 40-150R they're largely better. Perhaps I was expecting too much. I can't get over how much better the lens feels in the hand though - it's easier to grip for shooting and changing out, and both zoom and MF rings have a nicer action than the 40-150R. I hated trying to use the MF ring when the 40-150R was extended out. Despite being 20g heavier on paper, the 45-175 actually feels lighter than the 40-150R, and has a narrower profile for easier carry. The non-extending power zoom is great - discrete, stable (doesn't feel front heavy and wobbly), and doesn't get bogged down when I put heavy attachments like macro dioptres and the TCON-17 on.

More testing to follow, but early signs are that I might sell my 40-150R...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the update wjiang, please post updates as you do further testing. I was hoping to get my copy of the lens this Friday, but it appears that I won't get it until Monday now

Looking at photos of the lens online, one of the things I really like about the lens is how tiny it is. It is shorter and more narrow than the 35-100 f/2.8, which I already find as being a really small lens. To give me a 350mm equiv. FoV in a package that small is amazing. I also like the rubberized zoom ring, as all of my lenses except the Olympus 17/1.8 have one.

As long as the lens doesn't exhibit any shutter shock on my G6 using the mechanical shutter, is sharp at 175mm, and will shoot at 4fps in M burst mode, I'll probably end up selling my 100-300 (I don't use it that much to begin with, and the 45-175 is only 1/2 a stop slower at 175mm which doesn't bother me since I'd only be using this lens outdoors in good light anyways).

but then when I compare them to the 40-150R they're largely better....

Click to expand...

though I'm not getting this lens since I've already had the 40--150 2.8 pro, your comment really makes me curious just how much better the 45-175 is, it'll be interesting to see a comparison before you sell the Oly.

my friend took my advice and bought the 45-150, which is nice, and I couldn't believe the 40-150 4-5.6 was just as good (being much cheaper) until I got one, and then the 2.8 pro version, find it hard to imagine a 4.0-5.6-ish zoom performing better than that (the cheap version) ever since. if I'd known I'd have recommended and bought the 45-175 myself for its extended range and inner zoom, I've always loved the design.

and btw, what about the shutter shock issue, have you experienced that?

though I'm not getting this lens since I've already had the 40--150 2.8 pro, your comment really makes me curious just how much better the 45-175 is, it'll be interesting to see a comparison before you sell the Oly.

my friend took my advice and bought the 45-150, which is nice, and I couldn't believe the 40-150 4-5.6 was just as good (being much cheaper) until I got one, and then the 2.8 pro version, find it hard to imagine a 4.0-5.6-ish zoom performing better than that (the cheap version) ever since. if I'd known I'd have recommended and bought the 45-175 myself for its extended range and inner zoom, I've always loved the design.

and btw, what about the shutter shock issue, have you experienced that?

Click to expand...

Even though the IQ and AF are a little bit better, I think the image output/price ratio is still in favour of the 40-150R, unless you can find a good deal on the 45-175. Like I previously mentioned, where the 45-175 really sets itself apart is in aspects like usability, ergonomics, and general shooting experience. For me another factor is that I use macro dioptres and teleconverters on the end of the zoom, the 40-150R always feels like it's going to break in half...

With respect to supposed shutter shock - I use an E-M5 so only the IBIS is engaged, I'm not sure if this makes a difference (IBIS is known to be less effective for long focal lengths). My technique is not that great, so I generally don't dare shoot at such low shutter speeds at the long end that I'd get shutter shock anyway. In my hand-held tests I did get shots that were blurred due to motion, but the 40-150R and the 45-175 were comparable in this respect. If anything, the 40-150R was worse, as the barrel is out so far at full zoom.

wow, thanks wjiang, the 40-150 is good, 45-175 really is better, I didn't know that. thanks a lot for the comparison, and I agree with you using faster SS in the long end is a good idea, I don't see any sign of shutter shock in your images.

Thanks for the comparison wjiang! It appears as if the 45-175 i just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down to f/8, which is very good. Hopefully the copy I get won't be a dud, because I'd sure like to love this lens.

Has your copy arrived? The 45-175 image thread is pretty quiet at the moment ;-)

Click to expand...

Yes, I received my copy on Friday, and just did some quick tests with it over the weekend, as well as compared it to my 100-300 (which is a sharp copy). A couple notes from my end:
- I'm amazed at how small and light the lens is. Pictures just don't do it justice
- VERY good image quality (better than my 100-300 at both 100mm and 175mm), and exhibits no shutter shock using the mechanical shutter (lens firmware V1.2)
- 46mm thread diameter allows me to attach my MCON-P02 macro converter, which works very well IMO
- The power zoom works much better than I had anticipated, it is very quick to go from 45mm to 175mm

I did a test comparing my 45-175 to my 100-300 at 100mm and 175mm. I set the camera so that the 100-300 was at its minimum focusing distance for the given focal length, and then took a picture of a box with lots of text on it (camera on a tripod, 10s delay). I then did the same with the 45-175. Much to my surprise the 45-175 delivered sharper, higher contrast images than the 100-300 did (maybe because of it being an "X" lens and having the nano pro surface coating, idk). Either way, I'm very happy with the 45-175, so much so that I'm selling my 100-300.

wjiang, can you post some pictures of the tcon-17 on your 45-175 attached to your camera? I'd be interested to see how big it actually is.

Though I've infrequently used my 45-175, I love the lens for what it is, and agree with all the positives listed above. I own the 35-100 (used often) and 100-300, and both versions of the 14-140... The 45-174 seems such a good performer, and yes, the size and lightness have to be experienced to be appreciated.

I've never done tests, but the focusing with the 100-300 and both 14-140 lenses (GX1) has let me down a number of times, I don't remember that being as much of a problem with the 45-175. It's really hard to argue against the 45-175 lens for a versatile, daylight tele, and the size and weight help make it great for moto travel.